Recruitment and retention
113. The CAA told us that its ability to fulfil its
statutory remit, to deliver its corporate plan and to relate effectively
to the aviation sector both in the UK and internationally, was
"primarily dependent on the capability and quality of [its]
staff."[168] It
said that its current and future success would be determined by
its ability to "attract, retain, develop and motivate high
quality staff with appropriate skills, knowledge, experience and
competencies".[169]
114. However, some witnesses noted certain failings
among CAA staff. De Havilland Support Limited argued that CAA
staff "lack skill, knowledge and experience of the sector
and are inconsistent, adding significantly to industry costs with
no improvement in safety", while the Airport Operators Association
suggested that some CAA employees may be too specialised, and
that the CAA would therefore benefit from a broadening of the
skills of its field personnel.[170]
Prospect commented on skill shortages in some areas of the CAA,
telling us that within the past 18 months there had been two separate
recruitment exercises in the Air Traffic Services Investigation
arm of the CAA which failed to attract sufficient suitable candidates,
leaving the posts unfilled. It said that, despite a number of
separate initiatives for recruitment and market pay supplements,
there continued to be a gap between the resources required and
the staff in post. It argued that a common factor in the recruitment
difficulties was the lower level of salaries offered by the CAA
compared to those available within the larger air traffic service
units of NATS.[171]
115. The CAA responded to Prospect's claims by arguing
that it was no different from any other medium-to-large organisation
in that, at any given date, it had a number of vacancies as part
of ordinary organisational "churn".[172]
It accepted that the 64 (9.9%) unfilled posts within the Safety
Regulation Group as at 31 December 2005 represented an "unusually
high" level, but argued that this should be viewed in the
context of the transition of some safety regulatory activities
to EASA.[173] It explained
that it had budgeted for above-inflation increases in the market-related
supplements paid to certain sections of CAA staff as part of its
planning in 2005/06, in order to ensure that it avoided "getting
behind again in areas such as pilot and Air Traffic Controller
pay."[174]
116. We
are concerned by the evidence we have heard about the CAA's ability
to recruit and retain appropriately qualified and experienced
staff in the face of limited resources and competition from private
sector organisations such as National Air Traffic Services. Although
we note that "churn" within the CAA has been affected
by the European Aviation Safety Agency, we do not find it acceptable
that it should have 10% of its safety regulation posts unfilled
at any time.
We recommend that the Government review the effectiveness of market
supplements as a means of bridging salary disparities. We further
recommend that the CAA and the Government consider non-financial
incentives for making careers with the CAA more attractive, including
provisions for flexible working, training and personal development.
133